Nejame Files Motion to Strike for TES/Baez 7/16/09 Motion

[ExpectingUnicorns]

So from these latest revelations, I gather that they may be going with these defenses:

-Searchers missed the body, therefore, the body was not there and
-the state's forensic evidence (welcome, Ms. Baden) is shotty, so even if they say the body had been there since June, they could be wrong
-Someone either assisted KC or SODDI and moved the body there later-Perhaps conveniently during the time KC was in jail or under surveillance....

. . . or worse. Maybe they will try to say the searchers were not properly trained, or qualified or, worse yet, screened. They could suggest a searcher "planted" the body. Who knows what awful things they could come up with?

 

[Angel Who Cares]

Here's are the links to the 1st motion that Baez made back om January 7, 2009! Along with the other motions filed by Mark Nejame, State Motion's & the Judge Strickland's Motion to deny the records for TES records. Along with the hearing video & interviews with Baez, Mark Nejame, & Bill Sheaffer take on the hearing from January 30, 2009 on this subject!

Sorry if someone posted this I'm multi-tasking tonight! Packing for my vacation, looking up info for this thread & posting in other threads at the same time! Please excuse any of my typos or bad grammer too! :banghead:

Application For Subpoena Duces Tecum~Defense Motion
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum.pdf

Amended Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum Jan 22, 2009~Defense Motion
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/Amended Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum.pdf

Texas EquuSearch Motion~ Mark Nejame Tim Miller's Lawyer
Request To Strike And Response To Defendant's Amended Application For Subponea Duces Tecum
http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0129/18597428.pdf

Judge Decides On Equusearch Motion (1/30)
Order Denying Defendant's Amended Application For Subpoena Duces Tecum Regarding Equasearch
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/equusearch.pdf

RAW VIDEO: Unedited Court Hearing In Case Against Casey 35:55
Watch the full 35-minute hearing in the case against Casey Anthony. (01/30/09)
http://www.wftv.com/video/18603229/index.html

RAW INTERVIEW: EquuSearch Attorney Mark NeJame Speaks After Casey Hearing 3:45
Attorney Mark NeJame speaks after attending a hearing in the case against Casey Anthony. (01/30/09)
http://www.wftv.com/video/18605932/index.html

RAW INTERVIEW: Attorney Jose Baez Speaks After Casey Anthony Hearing 6:54
Attorney Jose Baez speaks after a hearing in the case against Casey Anthony. (01/30/09)
http://www.wftv.com/video/18605921/index.html

WFTV ANALYST: Bill Sheaffer Comments On Casey Hearing 8:31
Bill Shaeffer talks to reporter Kathi Belich about Casey Anthony's court appearance. (01/30/09)
http://www.wftv.com/video/18601807/index.html

Found the hearing from January 30, 2009 for the hearing on this motion to add here for reference for everyone too!
I've added the other videos for reference on this subject for discussion. :wink:

I hope this helps you all out for discussion on this subject! Thanks!!!

:angel:

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I remember that the Judge and MN complained about the lack of specificity in his motion the last time. I guess, since he wasn't outright denied, he gets the chance to file another motion on this issue. If someone else remembers differently, please share...I'm not 100% positive that this is right...but, it is what I thought happened.

Going by my notes, Jose was schooled by Judge Strickland regarding the Tim Miller situation at the January 30 hearing. When he denied the Subpoena Deuces Tecum, which requested all the information from TES, Strickland said that the request was too broad and that there was no proof that Miller was a representative of LE.

I haven't read the new motion yet, but I know it does ask to have Miller certified as a material witness.

IIRC, that was one of the hoops Strickland told Baez he would have to jump through to get information from TES.

I'm sure Friday will do much better!

ETA: I seriously doubt Strickland will give him unlimited access to everything he wants. He'll have to have a specific reason for each item he wants.

 

[Just Jayla]

On the day that Caylee's remains were found, Tim Miller was at the scene and stated that the place that Caylee was found was underwater at the time of his first search. By the time of the second search there was still water in that area. They tried searching that area but when they almost lost an ATV quit searching there.

True, but I wonder if they will try to find someone amongst the searchers that is "unsure" if they searched there or not, or maybe disagress w/ TM's assessment...I do tend to agree with you, though, I think the jury will respect TM's recollection that the area could not have been searched.

 

[Just Jayla]

. . . or worse. Maybe they will try to say the searchers were not properly trained, or qualified or, worse yet, screened. They could suggest a searcher "planted" the body. Who knows what awful things they could come up with?

Yikes.....

 

[Just Jayla]

Where does Kronk's timeline fit in with TES? I will see if I can figure it out from amongst the threads.

 

[Angel Who Cares]

Here is the NEW motion filed today!

Motion For Documents From Texas EquuSearch
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/MILLERDOC.pdf

:angel:

 

[Just Jayla]

Here is the NEW motion filed today!

Motion For Documents From Texas EquuSearch
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/MILLERDOC.pdf

:angel:

So Ms. Lyons ('cause I know this isn't JB's handy-work) is looking at the timing of the arrival of the body....She writes in KC's motion:

'....information...directly pertains to the timing and arrival of the remains of Caylee Marie Anthony at the site where they were discovered.'

 

[The Eunice Burns]

I'm sure Friday will do much better!

(Snipped for brevity)

Newbie question......

Who is Friday?

 

[Just Jayla]

I agree. I don't think Judge S is going to grant this. I could be wrong, but it seems like as others said, it would set a terrible precedent. I think Judge S would want to avoid it. What do you legal pro WSers think?

Not a legal pro, but I hope Judge Strickland would look more into the legalities of forcing this information from a business incorporated in another state. If this is something that the two states have agreed requires the filing of special motions, perhaps Ms. Lyons has just done that.
If there is no way for Florida to force the information from a Texan, regardless of the circumstances of the case (unless it's federal) Judge Strickland has no alternative but to deny KC's request. He cannot make up a new rule or procedure...
Hopefully the legal pros here can get more into this whole motion.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Thanks, Just Jayla. That would make sense........TES being in TX.

 

[Tuffy]

(Snipped for brevity)

Newbie question......

Who is Friday?

Friday is a user who posts here, and she works for Tim Miller at Texas Equisearch.

 

[chesterp]

(Snipped for brevity)

Newbie question......

Who is Friday?

Judith McNaught is a well-respected author and a very good friend of Tim Miller.

 

[Tuffy]

Not a legal pro, but I hope Judge Strickland would look more into the legalities of forcing this information from a business incorporated in another state. If this is something that the two states have agreed requires the filing of special motions, perhaps Ms. Lyons has just done that.
If there is no way for Florida to force the information from a Texan, regardless of the circumstances of the case (unless it's federal) Judge Strickland has no alternative but to deny KC's request. He cannot make up a new rule or procedure...
Hopefully the legal pros here can get more into this whole motion.

I am not a legal pro at all, however, the motion cites the "long arm statute."

I looked up "long arm statute" and found this definition on a legal definitions site:

The long arm statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. chap. 110, para. 17 [1955]) allowed service of process outside the state on nonresident individuals and corporations in actions arising out of (1) the transaction of any business in the state; (2) the commission of a tortious act within the state; (3) the ownership, use, or possession of real estate in the state; or (4) a contract to insure any person, property, or risk located in the state.

This quotes the Illinois law, but it is supposedly the template used by most other states for their long arm statutes.

So, am I wrong to think a Florida judge could rule on this?

 

[ClockWatcher]

Dang... you guys beat me to it! I was going to say that Friday is one of our most beloved posters, Tim's chief benefactor and kinda his female Knight in Shining Armor.

 

[RR0004]

So Ms. Lyons ('cause I know this isn't JB's handy-work) is looking at the timing of the arrival of the body....She writes in KC's motion:

'....information...directly pertains to the timing and arrival of the remains of Caylee Marie Anthony at the site where they were discovered.'

Oh...I have to hold my tongue!

 

[RR0004]

I am not a legal pro at all, however, the motion cites the "long arm statute."

I looked up "long arm statute" and found this definition on a legal definitions site:

The long arm statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. chap. 110, para. 17 [1955]) allowed service of process outside the state on nonresident individuals and corporations in actions arising out of (1) the transaction of any business in the state; (2) the commission of a tortious act within the state; (3) the ownership, use, or possession of real estate in the state; or (4) a contract to insure any person, property, or risk located in the state.

This quotes the Illinois law, but it is supposedly the template used by most other states for their long arm statutes.

So, am I wrong to think a Florida judge could rule on this?

So is that what Tim was doing...transacting business? Ok...have to hold my tongue again!!

 

[lisalei321]

There are several posters here who searched, myself included, does this mean I'm gonna need to move?

Seriously, I don't see the defense getting this information.

 

[chesterp]

There are several posters here who searched, myself included, does this mean I'm gonna need to move?

Seriously, I don't see the defense getting this information.

I searched and am a member of TES and I am not even concerned one little bit over this distraction.

 

[Theonly1]

In the end, what they are going to get is a whole lot of people saying they searched the area behind the fence to the right of the school and no one saying they searched the area Caylee was found. Useless...

Do they think Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzales searched for Caylee?